↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of MicroRNA Discovery Pipelines in Non-Model Organisms Using Closely Related Species Genomes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of MicroRNA Discovery Pipelines in Non-Model Organisms Using Closely Related Species Genomes
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kayvan Etebari, Sassan Asgari

Abstract

Mapping small reads to genome reference is an essential and more common approach to identify microRNAs (miRNAs) in an organism. Using closely related species genomes as proxy references can facilitate miRNA expression studies in non-model species that their genomes are not available. However, the level of error this introduces is mostly unknown, as this is the result of evolutionary distance between the proxy reference and the species of interest. To evaluate the accuracy of miRNA discovery pipelines in non-model organisms, small RNA library data from a mosquito, Aedes aegypti, were mapped to three well annotated insect genomes as proxy references using miRanalyzer with two strict and loose mapping criteria. In addition, another web-based miRNA discovery pipeline (DSAP) was used as a control for program performance. Using miRanalyzer, more than 80% reduction was observed in the number of mapped reads using strict criterion when proxy genome references were used; however, only 20% reduction was recorded for mapped reads to other species known mature miRNA datasets. Except a few changes in ranking, mapping criteria did not make any significant differences in the profile of the most abundant miRNAs in A. aegypti when its original or a proxy genome was used as reference. However, more variation was observed in miRNA ranking profile when DSAP was used as analysing tool. Overall, the results also suggested that using a proxy reference did not change the most abundant miRNAs' differential expression profiles when infected or non-infected libraries were compared. However, usage of a proxy reference could provide about 67% of the original outcome from more extremely up- or down-regulated miRNA profiles. Although using closely related species genome incurred some losses in the number of miRNAs, the most abundant miRNAs along with their differential expression profile would be acceptable based on the sensitivity level of each project.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
India 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 56 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 26%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Engineering 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2014.
All research outputs
#12,830,739
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#99,957
of 194,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,669
of 304,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,556
of 5,321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,321 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.